Al Gore explains "snowmageddon"

[tcutter]

i thought some may be interested in see the VP's take on things................

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/03/worsening-winters-come-global-warming/

[tacoman25]

i thought some may be interested in see the VP's take on things................

http://www.foxnews.c...global-warming/

The problem I have with Gore's statement is echoed by some of the critics in the article. Every time some big, bad weather event occurs, AGW is cited. We saw this after Hurricane Katrina, with the California drought, the 2003 European heatwave, and now with the heavy snowfalls and record cold of the past couple winters. Each time something happens, people like Gore say: "This is completely consistent with AGW and was expected." But there are two problems with this.

1. As several critics in the article point out, there has always been tremendous natural variability and severe weather events. There is no proof that the weather today is any more extreme than it has been in the past, before increased CO2.

2. Where were the predictions of Katrina and Snowmaggeddon, extreme cold, etc before they happened? Not the specific events, of course...but if you are going to give the credit to AGW for specific events, you really should have proof that those kind of events were specifically predicted. I don't remember seeing any studies that indicated severely cold winters would become more likely with AGW. I do remember reading ones that predicted fewer and fewer severe winters for many places. And lots of predictions of more severe droughts and heatwaves. But that was back in the old days, before "global warming" had morphed into "climate change".

[aslkahuna]

This problem of attribution of individual events or a series of them is one that dogs both sides of the argument. IF AGW (and BTW the new PC terminology is now "Climate Challenge") causes these events then there should be proof of same in that they didn't happen during cold cycles. OTOH, the fact that they are happening now indicates that there is NO Proof on the other side of the argument as well. I mean that although there is some logic to presume that snowfalls could be heavier with a warmer atmosphere, there is also the fact that there have been some real dumpers in the years before we began the warming. The warming is real, and certainly a certain amount of it is due to our activity but the outlandish statements that come out attributing this and that to AGW is counterproductive. Joe and Jane Sixpack are the ones you have to convince that warming exists and that something needs to be done. You tell them that Katrina, Droughts and heat are caused by warming and then turn around and say heavy snows and record cold are also and they are going be skeptical as all get out and will say "Say What?". The idea is that Climate is what you expect and weather is what you get and that the two are not the same thing is what you have to get through to them first so that they'll understand better what you are trying to say.

Steve

[BethesdaWX]

This bothers me...as has been shown, major snowfalls have not been increasing or decreasing...the warming seen, whatever the cause may be, has not had a major impact on snowfalls either way.

So why would they feel the need to justify a major snowfall against "AGW" without proof of such? As far as I know, snowstorms don't disprove "AGW", nor are they a threat to the "science" behind the theory.

BUT........could the issue be.......public opinion of "AGW" would be affected by a Blizzard? After all, people wouldn't think of a crippling blizzard in tandom with "AGW". So, to fight off skeptical repercussions throughout society, they go ahead and say "AGW" caused the snowfalls?

If I were Al Gore, I would admit that I'm already in a hole......and that I should quit digging!

[Clifford]

It is time to give credit where credit is due.

The 1960's and 1970's global cooling (which was once heralded as the coming of the next Ice Age) was due to a week solar cycle. And, of course, that period is often used as a basis for the "Global Warming" calculations.

The current cooling (or lack of warming) is also due to a week solar cycle, now predicted to be the lowest in a century.

Now, it doesn't mean that one can't superimpose a solar cooling cycle upon a trace gas mediated warming cycle. However, this coming decade will test the CO₂ mediated warming hypothesis.

Sure, blame hurricanes, tornadoes, & floods on Global Warming... Not snowstorms (with a corresponding plunge in the Global Temperature indices).

Floods? Should we blame Noah's flood on Global Warming too? Actually, some believe that Noah's flood was actually caused by Global Warming... just not caused by driving SUVs.

One should never forget that we've always had weather variability (as well as climate variability). Chicago, for example, periodically gets hit by snowstorms. Nothing new there.

[BethesdaWX]

It is time to give credit where credit is due.

The 1960's and 1970's global cooling (which was once heralded as the coming of the next Ice Age) was due to a week solar cycle. And, of course, that period is often used as a basis for the "Global Warming" calculations.

The current cooling (or lack of warming) is also due to a week solar cycle, now predicted to be the lowest in a century.

Now, it doesn't mean that one can't superimpose a solar cooling cycle upon a trace gas mediated warming cycle. However, this coming decade will test the CO₂ mediated warming hypothesis.

Sure, blame hurricanes, tornadoes, & floods on Global Warming... Not snowstorms (with a corresponding plunge in the Global Temperature indices).

Floods? Should we blame Noah's flood on Global Warming too? Actually, some believe that Noah's flood was actually caused by Global Warming... just not caused by driving SUVs.

One should never forget that we've always had weather variability (as well as climate variability). Chicago, for example, periodically gets hit by snowstorms. Nothing new there.

Exactly, couldn't agree more. Low solar, as seen in the 1970's, also somewhat correlated to the -PDO. The question is, is this just 1 weak solar cycle, as seen in the 1970's, or is it an extended minimum? If the latter is true, things will be heading downhill very quickly.

Although the "ice age" talk in the 1970's was mostly just media hype/books what were getting all the attention....but to think...1 solar cycle can cause mass panic, imagine what a extended minimum could do...

Only positive now, we still have the +AMO, which has a more defined warming impact on the Arctic & Northern Hemisphere.

[RutgersWx92]

The problem I have with Gore's statement is echoed by some of the critics in the article. Every time some big, bad weather event occurs, AGW is cited. We saw this after Hurricane Katrina, with the California drought, the 2003 European heatwave, and now with the heavy snowfalls and record cold of the past couple winters. Each time something happens, people like Gore say: "This is completely consistent with AGW and was expected." But there are two problems with this.

1. As several critics in the article point out, there has always been tremendous natural variability and severe weather events. There is no proof that the weather today is any more extreme than it has been in the past, before increased CO2.

2. Where were the predictions of Katrina and Snowmaggeddon, extreme cold, etc before they happened? Not the specific events, of course...but if you are going to give the credit to AGW for specific events, you really should have proof that those kind of events were specifically predicted. I don't remember seeing any studies that indicated severely cold winters would become more likely with AGW. I do remember reading ones that predicted fewer and fewer severe winters for many places. And lots of predictions of more severe droughts and heatwaves. But that was back in the old days, before "global warming" had morphed into "climate change".

Yep, it is very irritating when they keep trying to label every extreme weather event as evidence of AGW. There have been many devastating weather events throughout history and there is no evidence that the weather has gotten more extreme now than it was in the past.

And as someone in the original article said, these activists are great at pointing all extreme weather events to global warming after the fact but often terrible at predicting them in advance. As an example of the bolded: When I talked to the head of the met program here at Rutgers a couple of years ago (who has ties to Al Gore and is a big AGW activist) and told him I liked winter weather he said "Well there's definitely going to be less of that in the coming years!" I wonder if he's backtracking and now trying to explain all this record cold/snow as a result of AGW (or "climate change") like Al Gore is.

[Clifford]

Although the "ice age" talk in the 1970's was mostly just media hype/books what were getting all the attention....but to think...1 solar cycle can cause mass panic, imagine what a extended minimum could do...

Were you even born then?

It was Damn COLD

In Eugene, Oregon, we had a record snowfall in '69 which I don't believe has been approached since.

In the early 70's we had 2 years in a row when we had weeks of sub-zero temps. We got to go ice skating on our pond. Never happened at least in my parent's lifetime before, perhaps longer. Never since. It wasn't just the media making it up.

Obviously a local phenomenon doesn't make for a global catastrophe, but there are many indications that it was a global cooling event, or at least widespread across the Northern Hemisphere.

It also makes a great baseline for a new global warming scare.

[Peter M]

Gore is a 'politician' who has a decent understanding of the greenhouse effect. A better messenger would be Dr. James Hansen- who is politically independent (he has voted both democratic and republican).

'Its the throw of the dice' see video http://anhonestclima...ate-prediction/

Gore is a polarizing figure- especially to those on the far right, who view him as a liberal caricature, yet they believe with Godlike reverence, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and John Lindzen- who still denies that cigarette smoking causes health problems.

[tacoman25]

Gore is a 'politician' who has a decent understanding of the greenhouse effect. A better messenger would be Dr. James Hansen- who is politically independent (he has voted both democratic and republican).

'Its the throw of the dice' see video http://anhonestclima...ate-prediction/

Gore is a polarizing figure- especially to those on the far right, who view him as a liberal caricature, yet they believe with Godlike reverence, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and John Lindzen- who still denies that cigarette smoking causes health problems.

He may be an independent, but he is still a political activist. Not necessarily the best position for a scientist to be in.

[Peter M]

He may be an independent, but he is still a political activist. Not necessarily the best position for a scientist to be in.

Perhaps he sees a threat to his Grandchildren and future generations. Would you say the far right on the US Supreme court are not political activists? Who are they protecting?

Your analysis of Hansen, therefore knowing of his scientific credentials seems biased.

[tacoman25]

Perhaps he sees a threat to his Grandchildren and future generations. Would you say the far right on the US Supreme court are not political activists? Who are they protecting?

Your analysis of Hansen, therefore knowing of his scientific credentials seems biased.

Of course they are. But they aren't scientists.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being a political activist. But when you are a scientist, political activism does not lend itself to objectivity. At the very least, it sure doesn't make you look very objective.

[Peter M]

Of course they are. But they aren't scientists.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being a political activist. But when you are a scientist, political activism does not lend itself to objectivity. At the very least, it sure doesn't make you look very objective.

Most of Hansen's work on climate atmospherics dates back to the late 1980s- his theories also mostly rely on Paleoclimates- not computers models. Would you also call Michael Mann an activist?

[salbers]

Of course they are. But they aren't scientists.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being a political activist. But when you are a scientist, political activism does not lend itself to objectivity. At the very least, it sure doesn't make you look very objective.

Right, but scientists have to speak out, since educators aren't really doing the best job (and need some help) to stem scientific illiteracy.

[BethesdaWX]

Most of Hansen's work on climate atmospherics dates back to the late 1980s- his theories also mostly rely on Paleoclimates- not computers models. Would you also call Michael Mann an activist?

And Hansen has been a huge fail. Listen to his testimony to congress, then report back.

[skierinvermont]

Of course they are. But they aren't scientists.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being a political activist. But when you are a scientist, political activism does not lend itself to objectivity. At the very least, it sure doesn't make you look very objective.

So by the same standard you would call nuclear physicists who warn of lax nuclear power plant regulations biased as well?

[BethesdaWX]

Can he Explain this? Yep, global warming allows for colder tempratures, thus more snow can stick around.

In the +AO/+NAO, snow-on-snow event for dallas......first time in decades!

NOAA ESRL, stratospheric WV to 300mb

Where is the missing link?

The human race is so smart!

[Matt Rogers]

It is time to give credit where credit is due.

That graph certainly says a whole lot there. Very nice!

While these snowstorms are nothing new and we've certainly had far worse in the past, the 24-hour news media we have today has not had to deal with major winter storms like this on a weekly basis. It adds to the hysteria.

If Al Gore knew this notable uptick in snow was going to happen all along and it is due to global warming, why did he conveniently leave it out of his movie I wonder?

[Peter M]

That graph certainly says a whole lot there. Very nice!

While these snowstorms are nothing new and we've certainly had far worse in the past, the 24-hour news media we have today has not had to deal with major winter storms like this on a weekly basis. It adds to the hysteria.

If Al Gore knew this notable uptick in snow was going to happen all along and it is due to global warming, why did he conveniently leave it out of his movie I wonder?

Lets see what happens over the next 9 years- your pretty graphs mean nothing- temps are rising-C02 frighteningly so.

[BethesdaWX]

Lets see what happens over the next 9 years- your pretty graphs mean nothing- temps are rising-C02 frighteningly so.

Temps have not risen since the late 90's, and have been slightly cooling for almost a decade Via UAH. (since 2002)

The Graphs are the data.....Data means EVERYTHING!

please tell me you were joking

[nzucker]

Temps have not risen since the late 90's, and have been slightly cooling for almost a decade Via UAH. (since 2002)

The Graphs are the data.....Data means EVERYTHING!

please tell me you were joking

It doesn't look to me as if we've really cooled on UAH, you can't just exclude the rise from the recent El Niño....seems to be more a plateau than a drop.

[BethesdaWX]

It doesn't look to me as if we've really cooled on UAH, you can't just exclude the rise from the recent El Niño....seems to be more a plateau than a drop.

I can see why you'd say that. I tend to view the El Nino as a brief "interruption" in what has been a cooling trend. Its definitely a weak trend at this point, but that should really change come 2020.

[skierinvermont]

Temps have not risen since the late 90's, and have been slightly cooling for almost a decade Via UAH. (since 2002)

The Graphs are the data.....Data means EVERYTHING!

please tell me you were joking

I already posted a graph showing you that from Jan '02 to Dec '10 UAH has a slight warming trend. Your post is factually incorrect.

[BethesdaWX]

I already posted a graph showing you that from Jan '02 to Dec '10 UAH has a slight warming trend. Your post is factually incorrect.

Your post is statisitcally inapplicable.

How about we use proper basepoints....JAN 2002-JAN 2011, how about that? Cooling Trend at over -0.1C per decade.....See what you can do with statistics? Lets be more rational...2002-2011 as a whole has been cooling very slightly, 2010 El Nino spike not included in the overall trend. We're about to go uber cold in FEB, shaping up to be one of the coldest in the satellite era...

Not sure why you are using single months as basepoints....kinda shows deperation.

[JBG]

i thought some may be interested in see the VP's take on things................

http://www.foxnews.c...global-warming/

Gore is a clown, charlatan and liar at the same time. In this movie, he speculates that winters were becoming milder. Now they're colder? I mean come on. Either AGW makes weather colder, or warmer. Not both.

[Peter M]

Gore is a clown, charlatan and liar at the same time. In this movie, he speculates that winters were becoming milder. Now they're colder? I mean come on. Either AGW makes weather colder, or warmer. Not both.

Is Gore a scientist? Why attack him? By the way what you have said in your post makes no sense whatsoever. AGW does not simply go up. Winters overall here in Connecticut over the last 30 years are milder, snowfall has decreased. Springs begin earlier.

You need to lok at long term trends. Why attack Gore? Attack the National Academy of Sciences, the NOAA- Gore is only repeating what they say.

[BethesdaWX]

Is Gore a scientist? Why attack him? By the way what you have said in your post makes no sense whatsoever. AGW does not simply go up. Winters overall here in Connecticut over the last 30 years are milder, snowfall has decreased. Springs begin earlier.

You need to lok at long term trends. Why attack Gore? Attack the National Academy of Sciences, the NOAA- Gore is only repeating what they say.

Winters were warmer over the past 30yrs due to the +PDO/+AMO. Since 2007, right when the PDO went cold, our winters have gone cold as well. The NH winter was below avg in 2008, and is Below avg NOW. This is just the start.

[Clifford]

I already posted a graph showing you that from Jan '02 to Dec '10 UAH has a slight warming trend. Your post is factually incorrect.

The last decade has been very flat.

For NOAA the years 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010 all have temperatures where the error bars are crossed with a line through about 0.58°C.

The years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2008 lie below the line.

If one chooses to exclude the years 1999, 2000, and 2001, then 2008 would likely weigh the graph towards the negative.

Also, many agencies attribute a higher peak to 1998, although perhaps that just the peak anomaly, and not the annual average. Both 1998 and 2010 had strong El Niño currents contributing to the high peak. Much of the rest of the decade was characterized by moderate El Niño currents.

Anyway, one should conclude that there hasn't been much change last decade.

Since 1998, there are more years that fall below the line early in the 13 year period.

Skipping those early years, then since 2002, the majority of the low years land at the end of the period.

The low "solar forcing" late in the decade is likely attributing to the flatness of the line.

[BethesdaWX]

Your post is statisitcally inapplicable.

How about we use proper basepoints....JAN 2002-JAN 2011, how about that? Cooling Trend at over -0.1C per decade.....See what you can do with statistics? Lets be more rational...2002-2011 as a whole has been cooling very slightly, 2010 El Nino spike not included in the overall trend. We're about to go uber cold in FEB, shaping up to be one of the coldest in the satellite era...

Not sure why you are using single months as basepoints....kinda shows deperation.

I knew there would be no rebuttal

[salbers]

13 years is kind of a short time to look at the AGW signal as it more reliably shows up in timeseries of 20 years or longer. Nonetheless it seems that a regression line through those 13 years would still be upward.